The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused who was neither named in the First Information Report nor linked to the crime by any direct evidence, emphasizing that custodial confessions alone cannot sustain denial of liberty under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail must be the norm, not the exception, particularly where the prosecution’s case rests on weak or circumstantial grounds.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Ashutosh Maurya, was arrested on 17.02.2026 in connection with Case Crime No. 318 of 2025, registered at Police Station Unchahar, District Raebareli, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(3), 352, 3(5) BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case arose from an alleged assault on Umesh on 12.08.2025 at approximately 06.00 p.m., during which two unidentified persons, along with nominated individuals Vinod and Vicky Maurya, were said to have inflicted serious injuries. It was further alleged that during flight, firing occurred.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 12.08.2025 at approximately 06.00 p.m. in Unchahar, District Raebareli
- The First Information Report (FIR) named Vinod Maurya and Vicky Maurya as accused, but did not name Ashutosh Maurya
- Ashutosh Maurya was named as an accused only after the custodial confession of Vinod Maurya
- No independent identification of Ashutosh Maurya was recorded by any witness or during investigation
- No firearm injuries were found on any of the injured persons
- Recovered items included spent bullets and a motorcycle, but no weapon was traced to the appellant
- Injury reports of Mahendra Kumar and Kalpana indicated simple injuries caused by hard and blunt objects
- Vinod Maurya, the co-accused whose confession implicated Ashutosh, was granted bail by the same High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3213 of 2025
- The appellant has been in custody since 17.02.2026
- The appellant has a prior criminal record of ten cases, all of which were explained in Paragraph 12 of the rejoinder affidavit
Procedural History
- 12.08.2025: Alleged incident occurred
- 13.08.2025: FIR registered at PS Unchahar, Crime No. 318 of 2025
- 17.02.2026: Appellant arrested
- 10.03.2026: Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli, rejected bail application (Bail Application No. 476/2026)
- 20.03.2026: Criminal Appeal No. 806 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court
- 07.05.2026: Hearing concluded; judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
Appellant’s Position: The appellant was never named in the FIR, was not identified by any witness, and was implicated solely on the basis of a custodial confession by Vinod Maurya, who has since been granted bail. There is no physical or forensic evidence linking him to the crime. The injuries are simple, and no firearm was recovered from him. His prior criminal record has been explained and does not justify continued incarceration.
Respondent’s Position: The State contended that the appellant has a history of ten prior cases involving similar offences, and that his involvement is established through the confession of Vinod Maurya, who was apprehended at the scene. Recovered spent bullets and a motorcycle allegedly connect him to the crime.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the bail rejection order dated 10.03.2026 and immediate release on bail with appropriate conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an accused can be denied bail under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, solely on the basis of a custodial confession by a co-accused, when the accused is not named in the FIR, has no independent evidence linking him to the crime, and the injuries are simple in nature.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel argued that the appellant’s name does not appear in the FIR, and no witness has identified him. The sole basis for his inclusion is the alleged confession of Vinod Maurya, which is inherently unreliable under Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani and State of U.P. v. Krishna Singh. The injuries are simple, and no firearm was recovered from the appellant. Vinod Maurya, the confessor, has already been granted bail. The appellant has been in custody since 17.02.2026, and his prior criminal record has been satisfactorily explained. Denial of bail at this stage violates the presumption of innocence and the proportionality principle under Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate contended that the appellant’s prior criminal history of ten cases involving similar offences indicates a pattern of criminal conduct. The recovery of spent bullets and a motorcycle, coupled with the confession of Vinod Maurya, establishes a prima facie case. The nature of the offence under the SC/ST Act demands strict scrutiny, and bail should not be granted lightly.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the material on record and held that at the bail stage, the court must not delve into the merits of the case but must assess whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case. The Court observed:
"The appellant has not been nominated in the F.I.R. and has been taken into custody only on the basis of alleged confessional statement in custody of the nominated person Vinod Kumar Maurya. The injury reports of both the injured indicate injuries to be simple in nature. The main accused Vinod Kumar Maurya has already been enlarged on bail..."
The Court emphasized that a custodial confession, especially when uncorroborated, cannot be the sole basis for denying bail. The absence of any direct evidence - no eyewitness, no recovery from the appellant, no identification - rendered the case against him speculative. The Court further noted that the injuries were classified as simple, which undercuts the severity required for invoking the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act. The fact that the principal accused had been granted bail further weakened the argument for continued detention of the appellant. The Court also acknowledged the appellant’s explanation of prior cases and the length of incarceration since 17.02.2026.
The Court held that the Special Judge below erred in failing to appreciate the absence of direct evidence and in over-relying on an uncorroborated custodial statement. The denial of bail was therefore unsustainable.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The order dated 10.03.2026 rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the following conditions: (i) No tampering with evidence; (ii) No intimidation of witnesses; (iii) No inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts; (iv) No adjournment requests when witnesses are present; (v) Presence before the trial court on all dates, personally or through counsel; (vi) In case of non-appearance, proceedings under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, may be initiated; and (vii) In case of proclamation under Section 84 BNSS and non-appearance, proceedings under Section 209 BNSS shall be initiated. Pending applications stand disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custodial Confessions Alone Are Insufficient for Bail Denial
- Practitioners must challenge bail denials where the accused is not named in the FIR and the only link is a custodial confession
- Courts must apply Arnesh Kumar and Nandini Satpathy to reject speculative inferences from uncorroborated confessions
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to show independent corroboration before denying liberty
Simple Injuries Undermine Allegations of Atrocities
- Injuries classified as "simple" under medical reports weaken the applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act
- Prosecution must establish intent to humiliate or degrade based on caste identity - mere assault is insufficient
- Medical reports must be scrutinized at the bail stage to assess whether the offence meets the threshold of "atrocity"
Bail Conditions Must Be Specific and Enforceable
- The Court’s imposition of detailed conditions - including no adjournment abuse and mandatory court appearance - sets a new benchmark
- Failure to comply triggers automatic penal provisions under BNSS, enhancing accountability
- Practitioners should draft similar conditions in bail applications to ensure enforceability and reduce risk of revocation
